Hiller v. Hiller
2015 SD 58
| S.D. | 2015Background
- James and Jennifer Hiller farmed together, owned two adjacent parcels (Home Quarter valued higher and New Quarter), and divorced by decree entered June 6, 2013.
- The court awarded James the Home Quarter and most farming assets, Jennifer the New Quarter, and directed James to assume all marital debt except $500,000 and to pay Jennifer $150,000 over time to equalize the division.
- The decree contained a "Refinancing Provision": James must "make best efforts with the bank and cooperate to remove [Jennifer] from the liabilities." Neither party appealed the decree.
- James attempted refinancing (approvals denied or contingent) and could not obtain releases from creditors; Jennifer then moved to compel sale of James’s property to remove her from the debt.
- The circuit court ordered James to refinance or, failing that, to sell the Home Quarter (extended deadline to March 15, 2015) to secure Jennifer’s release; James sought relief under SDCL 15-6-60(b) and the court denied it.
- On appeal the Supreme Court held the forced-sale portion of the order impermissibly modified the divorce property division and reversed that part; it affirmed denial of Rule 60(b) relief and denied appellate fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jennifer) | Defendant's Argument (James) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court had authority to order sale of James’s farmland to remove Jennifer from debt | Order enforces/clarifies the refinancing clause and compels compliance, not a modification | Forced sale impermissibly modifies property division; refinancing efforts should be assessed before enforcement | Sale order impermissibly modified property division and was reversed |
| Whether court abused discretion by not allocating sale costs/taxes | Not addressed as central when enforcing decree | Court should consider dividing costs of any forced sale | Not reached (court reversed sale order; issue unnecessary) |
| Whether Rule 60(b) relief to reopen/restructure property division was warranted | N/A (Jennifer opposed reopening) | Reopening needed because refinancing became impossible; new evidence shows compliance impossible | Denial of Rule 60(b) relief affirmed; no exceptional circumstances shown |
| Whether appellate attorney fees should be awarded | Fees requested under SDCL 15-26A-87.3 and 15-17-38 | Same | Denied; award would be contrary to interests of justice |
Key Cases Cited
- Sjomeling v. Sjomeling, 472 N.W.2d 487 (S.D. 1991) (courts may enforce or clarify divorce decrees but may not modify property division)
- Hisgen v. Hisgen, 554 N.W.2d 494 (S.D. 1996) (indeterminate language in decree may be clarified)
- Robertson v. Robertson, 376 N.W.2d 733 (Minn. 1985) (ordering sale of property awarded in divorce constituted improper modification)
- Talbert v. Talbert, 290 N.W.2d 862 (S.D. 1980) (elements required to establish civil contempt)
- Pesicka v. Pesicka, 618 N.W.2d 725 (S.D. 2000) (Rule 60(b) relief requires exceptional circumstances)